AGENDA DOCUMENTS
~"C~., ,. ~"~.;;>'.."'"
i/ r. '\\\
.'. \
~ \ j:r;
0, "'- ju,
.l- 'V""'-- ~v "..I'
"'ON 0 /'
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be_ Turned Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned
Meetine Dates in to City Clerk's Office Meetine Dates in to City Clerk's Office
D August 6, 2002 July 17 2002 (5'00 p,m,) D October I 2002 September 16,2002 (Noon)
D August 20, 2002 August 5 2002 (Noon) D October 15 2002 September 30, 2002 (Noon)
D September 3 2002 August 19 2002 (Noon) D November 6, 2002 October 14 2002 (Noon)
D September 17 2002 September 3 2002 (8:00 a,m,) ~ November 19 2002 November 5 2002 (Noon)
D Administrative D Development Plans
NATURE OF [8J Consent Agenda D New Business
AGENDA ITEM D Public Hearing D Legal
D Bids D Unfmished Business
D Announcement D Presentation
D City Manager's Report
RECOMMENDATION Please place this request on the November 19,2002 City Commission Agenda under
Consent Agenda. The Planning and Development Board with a unanimous vote, recommended that the subject request be
denied, and alternatively recommends that a 6-month time extension (retro-active) be approved to allow the site plan to
proceed to the permit stage. For further details pertaining to the request, see attached Department of Development
Memorandum No. PZ 02-251
EXPLANATION
PROJECT
AGENT
OWNER.
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION
Boynton Beach Medical Pavilion (ADAP 02-001)
Kieran Kilday, Kilday & Associates, Inc.
Bethesda Healthcare System, Inc.
2815 South Seacrest Boulevard
Appeal from the October 3, 2002 administrative decision denying Boynton Beach
Medical Pavilion's request for building permit submittal due to site plan expiration.
PROGRAM IMPACT
FISCAL IMPACT
ALTERNATIVES
N/A
N/A
N/A
Develo
City Manager's Signature
'/1<-- (~ 7~~
Planning and Zoning . e or
City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Boynton Beach Medical Pavilion\ADAP 02-001\Agenda Item Request Boynton Beach Med, Pav (ADAP 02-001)
II 19-02.dot
S:\BULLETlN\FOR...\1S\AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM,DOC
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO PZ 02-251
FROM
Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
Michael Rumpf ~ ~~
Planning and Zoning Director
TO
DATE
November 6 2002
SUBJECT
Boynton Beach Medical Pavilion Appeal (ADAP 02-001)
Appeal of administrative determination that site plan has expired
Project.
Boynton Beach Medical Pavilion
Location
2815 S Seacrest Boulevard (see Exhibit A - Location Map)
Agent:
Kieran J Kilday Kilday & Associates Inc
Request:
Notice of Appeal from the October 3 2002 determination of the Development
Director that the subject site plan had expired and building permits cannot be
issued
BACKGROUND
Request for Buildinq Permits
On October 1 2002 the general contractor for the above-referenced project attempted to file for
a building permit. At that time staff determined that the subject site plan had expired as of
September 4, 2002. Upon request for reconsideration from the agent the Department Director
on October 3 2002 issued a written notice indicating that the site plan had expired and as a
consequence of the expiration no building permits could be issued
Request for Appeal
Staff received the request for appeal on October 4, 2002 just one day following issuance of the
administrative determination According to the Land Development Regulations Chapter 1
Article VII an appeal must be filed within fifteen (15) calendar days following the rendition of the
order (statement of administrative determination)
Administrative appeals are processed in accordance with procedures outlined in Chapter 1 5
Article I See 4 1 E of the Land Development Regulations Under these procedures the
Planning and Development Board hears the appeal and renders a decision that must be ratified
by the City Commission
The subject appeal is based on the position of the applicant that the time clock for site plan
approval should not have started until after all conditions of approval had been satisfied
particularly since they involved separate application processes Due to the proposed height of
the project exceeding the maximum allowed by code at the time of application conditions of site
plan approval Included completion of the code review process tnat would increase the
maximum height for the C-1 zonmg dlstnct, and add parapets to the list of architectural
elements eligible for height exception Although site plan approval occurred on September 4
2001 the code amendment and subsequent height exception where not approved until October
10 2001 and November 6 2001 respectively The documents referenced herem are attached
hereto and labeled as follows
Exhibit "B - Request for reconsideration
Exhibit C" - Administrative Determination
Exhibit D - Request for administrative appeal
ANAL YSIS/CONCLUSIONS
The Land Development Regulations Chapter 4 Site Plan Review Section 5 allows one (1)
year to secure a building permit from the date of site plan approval This section reads as
follows
"Upon approval of a site plan by the City Commission the applicant shall have (1) year to
secure a building permit from the development department, If an applicant fails to secure a
building permit in that time, all previous approvals shall become null and void and the applicant
will be required to submit a new site plan and applicatIOn provided however a clearing permit
shall not constitute a building permit plan for site plan review purposes At its discretion the
City Commission may extend the approval of a site plan for a one-year period provided a
request for extension is filed prior to the expiration of the one-year period In granting such
conditions the City Commission may impose additional conditions to conform the site plan to
current development standards. "
The purposes of this time limitation are to maintain approved projects in accordance with
current development regulations, to free-up infrastructure capacity for active or new
development applications, and to expire projects that are not proceeding in good faith
Furthermore, the above-described code section refers to the date when the site plan is
approved rather than the dates when the conditions of approval are satisfied With respect to
the prerequisite application processes the applicant could have postponed the processing of
the site plan to coincide with the ultimate amendments to the code
The following is a summary of the points relevant to this case on which the ultimate
recommendation is based
1 There have been no amendments to the Land Development Regulations subsequent to
site plan approval which would warrant the reprocessing of a site plan application for the
proposed project;
2 There currently remains adequate capacity on the adjacent roadway network to
accommodate the projected impacts from the proposed project. and there are currently
no other pending projects within the same vicinity which would compete for trip
availability'
3 It appears that progress has been continuing on the proposed project since approval
was granted as evidenced by the retaining of a development team the designing of
engineering drawings the permitting of right-of-way work by Palm Beach County and
the ultimate action to request building permits (see Exhibit E"), and